Trump has been EXONERATED of all charges.

[Faun]

LOLOL

So you say. Both were found not guilty.

Yet now rightards are trying to say Impeached Trump is innocent but Bill Clinton isn't.

2 parts to impeachment fucktard. The crime and the removal if necessary. Clinton WAS found GUILTY, 37 dems agreed. Trump was acquitted. Klinton was NOT, he was found guilty. Neither made it to "removal vote",,,, get with it you lying deflecting asshole.

Learn how to use the quote feature, imbecile.

Your struggles with quotes aside -- Clinton was found not guilty of the charges against him -- same as Impeached Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-impeachment/senate-acquits-president-clinton/


The United States Senate acquitted William Jefferson Clinton yesterday on charges that he committed perjury and obstruction of justice to hide sexual indiscretions with a onetime White House intern, permitting the 42nd president to complete the remaining 708 days of his term.

After a tumultuous year of scandal that tested the Constitution and tried the nation’s patience, neither of the two articles of impeachment brought by the House garnered a simple majority, much less the two-thirds necessary to convict Clinton of high crimes and misdemeanors. Article I alleging perjury was defeated on a 45 to 55 vote at 12:21 p.m. Just 18 minutes later, Article II charging obstruction failed on a 50 to 50 tie. Five Republicans joined all 45 Democrats in supporting full acquittal.​

 

[Faun]

Then he would have been found to be innocent. But he wasn't. He was found to be not guilty.

According to you yahoos, Bill Clinton was innocent if lying under oath.

Is that really your position??

No, my position is that Senators voted based on question. Again, "not guilty" means - innocent.

Clinton did lie under oath, and Senate's verdict was "not guilty" and he was acquitted.

Voting not guilty, even while lying under oath was proven, speaks more about Senate, than about justice being served. However, his lying under oath did cause him some legal penalties. Unlike Clinton, there was no proof of Trump's "crimes".

Of course there was proof of Impeached Trump's crimes. That aside, according to you, "not guilty" equals "innocent." ... Bill Clinton was found "not guilty" of lying under oath... according to you, that means Bill Clinton was innocent.

Too much fun, and too easy fucking with you imbeciles....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clinton was found to be not guilty. You yahoos insist "not guilty" means "innocent."

Now you're trying to show that doesn't apply to Clinton.

Did you read my post, dunce?

Regardless of what I said, you're still repeating the same shit, like broken record.

Clinton stayed president, didn't he?

Yes, he did -- he was innocent according to you numbnuts.

.... yes ... that's how stupid you sound.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Then why are you and your cronies constantly blubbering about a "fair trial?" Presumption of innocence is one of the critical components of a fair trial.

Of a fair criminal trial, fucking moron.

Lie

Imbecile, "nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal.

Presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of the American criminal justice system...

We’ll asswipe, it’s funny how for an impeachment, you are alleging high CRIMES OR MISDEMEANORS. See that word crime moron? Bitch slapped yet again.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck...

"There certainly doesn't have to be a crime." ~ Alan Dershowitz

Regardless, Impeached Trump was impeached on two crimes -- soliciting foreign aid for his re-election campaign and obstructing Congress.

Now we call Adam Schitt the worlds biggest hemofrhoid

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You are running from the question keemosabe.

Didn't run from anything. trump proved his guilt by what he did.

So you CAN'T prove it and hearsay is just fine.
You have fine legal mind there Malcolm.

Trumps actions proved his guilt. His blocking witnesses and documents is not hearsay. It is what he did.

So you don't really NEED for evidence a thing IS simply because you say it is....must be a heavy burden being both judge and jury for all things.

I find it rather rich that a bunch of republicans make claims like this while declaring that joe Biden blackmailed Ukraine with no evidence. trumps behavior proved his guilt. This is not about being judge or jury, if trump was innocent he doesn't block any information that proves it.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

No, my position is that Senators voted based on question. Again, "not guilty" means - innocent.

Clinton did lie under oath, and Senate's verdict was "not guilty" and he was acquitted.

Voting not guilty, even while lying under oath was proven, speaks more about Senate, than about justice being served. However, his lying under oath did cause him some legal penalties. Unlike Clinton, there was no proof of Trump's "crimes".

Of course there was proof of Impeached Trump's crimes. That aside, according to you, "not guilty" equals "innocent." ... Bill Clinton was found "not guilty" of lying under oath... according to you, that means Bill Clinton was innocent.

Too much fun, and too easy fucking with you imbeciles....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clinton was found to be not guilty. You yahoos insist "not guilty" means "innocent."

Now you're trying to show that doesn't apply to Clinton.

Did you read my post, dunce?

Regardless of what I said, you're still repeating the same shit, like broken record.

Clinton stayed president, didn't he?

Yes, he did -- he was innocent according to you numbnuts.

.... yes ... that's how stupid you sound.

He’s a scumbag predator who lost his law license, and had to pay some of the women he creeped on. What father wants their twenty something daughter involved with him. Don did nothing. Your the stupid one. Even stupider for voting for hilly. And obviously quite triggered by him. I’m just going to vote for him again, and continue fucking with you imbeciles. I find it hilarious when dims are incensed and obsessed with him. All you idiots did, was give him more campaign money and voters. But that’s great, because things are going well, despite propaganda about the world ending.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

Then why are you and your cronies constantly blubbering about a "fair trial?" Presumption of innocence is one of the critical components of a fair trial.

Of a fair criminal trial, fucking moron.

Lie

Imbecile, "nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal.

Presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of the American criminal justice system...

We’ll asswipe, it’s funny how for an impeachment, you are alleging high CRIMES OR MISDEMEANORS. See that word crime moron? Bitch slapped yet again.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck...

"There certainly doesn't have to be a crime." ~ Alan Dershowitz

Regardless, Impeached Trump was impeached on two crimes -- soliciting foreign aid for his re-election campaign and obstructing Congress.

Were those both in the impeachment articles?

Why, no they weren't. What criminal statute was violated?

 

[JLW]

No, my position is that Senators voted based on question. Again, "not guilty" means - innocent.

Clinton did lie under oath, and Senate's verdict was "not guilty" and he was acquitted.

Voting not guilty, even while lying under oath was proven, speaks more about Senate, than about justice being served. However, his lying under oath did cause him some legal penalties. Unlike Clinton, there was no proof of Trump's "crimes".

Of course there was proof of Impeached Trump's crimes. That aside, according to you, "not guilty" equals "innocent." ... Bill Clinton was found "not guilty" of lying under oath... according to you, that means Bill Clinton was innocent.

Too much fun, and too easy fucking with you imbeciles....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clinton was found to be not guilty. You yahoos insist "not guilty" means "innocent."

Now you're trying to show that doesn't apply to Clinton.

Did you read my post, dunce?

Regardless of what I said, you're still repeating the same shit, like broken record.

Clinton stayed president, didn't he?

Yes, he did -- he was innocent according to you numbnuts.

.... yes ... that's how stupid you sound.

That is exactly right. Under this definition of exoneration Trumpers are arguing for Clinton is completely innocent. Nothing ever happened in the Oval Office. No blue dress. Clinton never lied. Clinton is as pure as the driven snow.

 

[Faun]

Of a fair criminal trial, fucking moron.

Lie

Imbecile, "nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal.

Presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of the American criminal justice system...

We’ll asswipe, it’s funny how for an impeachment, you are alleging high CRIMES OR MISDEMEANORS. See that word crime moron? Bitch slapped yet again.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck...

"There certainly doesn't have to be a crime." ~ Alan Dershowitz

Regardless, Impeached Trump was impeached on two crimes -- soliciting foreign aid for his re-election campaign and obstructing Congress.

Now we call Adam Schitt the worlds biggest hemofrhoid

So?

 

[Faun]

Of a fair criminal trial, fucking moron.

Lie

Imbecile, "nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal.

Presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of the American criminal justice system...

We’ll asswipe, it’s funny how for an impeachment, you are alleging high CRIMES OR MISDEMEANORS. See that word crime moron? Bitch slapped yet again.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck...

"There certainly doesn't have to be a crime." ~ Alan Dershowitz

Regardless, Impeached Trump was impeached on two crimes -- soliciting foreign aid for his re-election campaign and obstructing Congress.

Were those both in the impeachment articles?

Why, no they weren't. What criminal statute was violated?

Of course they were.

Article I

President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage.​

That violates §30121

It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value,

Article II

Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees

Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees​

That violates 18 U.S. Code § 1505

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Of course there was proof of Impeached Trump's crimes. That aside, according to you, "not guilty" equals "innocent." ... Bill Clinton was found "not guilty" of lying under oath... according to you, that means Bill Clinton was innocent.

Too much fun, and too easy fucking with you imbeciles....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clinton was found to be not guilty. You yahoos insist "not guilty" means "innocent."

Now you're trying to show that doesn't apply to Clinton.

Did you read my post, dunce?

Regardless of what I said, you're still repeating the same shit, like broken record.

Clinton stayed president, didn't he?

Yes, he did -- he was innocent according to you numbnuts.

.... yes ... that's how stupid you sound.

That is exactly right. Under this definition of exoneration Trumpers are arguing for Clinton is completely innocent. Nothing ever happened in the Oval Office. No blue dress. Clinton never lied. Clinton is as pure as the driven snow.

This has nothing to do with people who voted for trump. You want to believe Clinton is a great guy, WFC’s. Neither he or his wife will ever be in politics again. They just continue to take up space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

Too much fun, and too easy fucking with you imbeciles....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clinton was found to be not guilty. You yahoos insist "not guilty" means "innocent."

Now you're trying to show that doesn't apply to Clinton.

Did you read my post, dunce?

Regardless of what I said, you're still repeating the same shit, like broken record.

Clinton stayed president, didn't he?

Yes, he did -- he was innocent according to you numbnuts.

.... yes ... that's how stupid you sound.

That is exactly right. Under this definition of exoneration Trumpers are arguing for Clinton is completely innocent. Nothing ever happened in the Oval Office. No blue dress. Clinton never lied. Clinton is as pure as the driven snow.

This has nothing to do with people who voted for trump. You want to believe Clinton is a great guy, WFC’s. Neither he or his wife will ever be in politics again. They just continue to take up space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's idiots on the right who declared Bill Clinton innocent.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Clinton was found to be not guilty. You yahoos insist "not guilty" means "innocent."

Now you're trying to show that doesn't apply to Clinton.

Did you read my post, dunce?

Regardless of what I said, you're still repeating the same shit, like broken record.

Clinton stayed president, didn't he?

Yes, he did -- he was innocent according to you numbnuts.

.... yes ... that's how stupid you sound.

That is exactly right. Under this definition of exoneration Trumpers are arguing for Clinton is completely innocent. Nothing ever happened in the Oval Office. No blue dress. Clinton never lied. Clinton is as pure as the driven snow.

This has nothing to do with people who voted for trump. You want to believe Clinton is a great guy, WFC’s. Neither he or his wife will ever be in politics again. They just continue to take up space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's idiots on the right who declared Bill Clinton innocent.

I never voted for him. I don’t care. He’s done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

Did you read my post, dunce?

Regardless of what I said, you're still repeating the same shit, like broken record.

Clinton stayed president, didn't he?

Yes, he did -- he was innocent according to you numbnuts.

.... yes ... that's how stupid you sound.

That is exactly right. Under this definition of exoneration Trumpers are arguing for Clinton is completely innocent. Nothing ever happened in the Oval Office. No blue dress. Clinton never lied. Clinton is as pure as the driven snow.

This has nothing to do with people who voted for trump. You want to believe Clinton is a great guy, WFC’s. Neither he or his wife will ever be in politics again. They just continue to take up space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's idiots on the right who declared Bill Clinton innocent.

I never voted for him. I don’t care. He’s done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL

Your non-sequitur is noted, laughed at, and summarily discarded.

And again, it's lunatic righties in this thread who insist Bill Clinton is innocent of lying under oath.

 

[Nostra]

Huh.....

not guilty
/ˌnät ˈɡiltē/
phrase of guilty

1. innocent, especially of a formal charge.

Defendants are found to be "not guilty," not "innocent." If they were found to be innocent, then the verdict would be "innocent."

Let's presume that Senator were asked to vote "guilty" or "innocent", what would final verdict be?

Then he would have been found to be innocent. But he wasn't. He was found to be not guilty.

According to you yahoos, Bill Clinton was innocent if lying under oath.

Is that really your position??

No, my position is that Senators voted based on question. Again, "not guilty" means - innocent.

Clinton did lie under oath, and Senate's verdict was "not guilty" and he was acquitted.

Voting not guilty, even while lying under oath was proven, speaks more about Senate, than about justice being served. However, his lying under oath did cause him some legal penalties. Unlike Clinton, there was no proof of Trump's "crimes".

Of course there was proof of Impeached Trump's crimes. That aside, according to you, "not guilty" equals "innocent." ... Bill Clinton was found "not guilty" of lying under oath... according to you, that means Bill Clinton was innocent.

Except Slick pled his case out, paid a huge fine, and was disbarred.

Oops!

 

[Nostra]

The impeachment that had no more significance that a ticket for jaywalking.

LOL

It's an asterisk next to his name for as long as the U.S. is a country.

The asterisk will denote the day that impeachment become no more significant than a parking ticket.

That's also not true. Impeached Trump can still face criminal prosecution over this when he leaves office.

There were no charges. They wasted about a hundred million so far. Even if it could happen, it’s not. Why don’t you write the president a letter, expressing your feelings. I’m sure you’ll receive a response. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure there were. He was charged with soliciting foreign interference to help with his re-election. That's a crime. And he was charged with obstructing Congress. That's also a crime.

Link us up to those statutes, Sport.

 

[Nostra]

Exoneration occurs when the conviction for a crime is reversed, either through demonstration of innocence, a flaw in the conviction, or otherwise.

Trump didn't get off on a technicality. He was exonerated.

 

[Nostra]

Lie

Imbecile, "nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal.

Presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of the American criminal justice system...

We’ll asswipe, it’s funny how for an impeachment, you are alleging high CRIMES OR MISDEMEANORS. See that word crime moron? Bitch slapped yet again.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck...

"There certainly doesn't have to be a crime." ~ Alan Dershowitz

Regardless, Impeached Trump was impeached on two crimes -- soliciting foreign aid for his re-election campaign and obstructing Congress.

Were those both in the impeachment articles?

Why, no they weren't. What criminal statute was violated?

Of course they were.

Article I

President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage.​

That violates §30121

It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value,

Article II

Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees

Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees​

That violates 18 U.S. Code § 1505

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress

Why didn't the House Clowns include those in the AOI, Halfwit?

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Yes, he did -- he was innocent according to you numbnuts.

.... yes ... that's how stupid you sound.

That is exactly right. Under this definition of exoneration Trumpers are arguing for Clinton is completely innocent. Nothing ever happened in the Oval Office. No blue dress. Clinton never lied. Clinton is as pure as the driven snow.

This has nothing to do with people who voted for trump. You want to believe Clinton is a great guy, WFC’s. Neither he or his wife will ever be in politics again. They just continue to take up space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's idiots on the right who declared Bill Clinton innocent.

I never voted for him. I don’t care. He’s done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL

Your non-sequitur is noted, laughed at, and summarily discarded.

And again, it's lunatic righties in this thread who insist Bill Clinton is innocent of lying under oath.

I’m going to be voting for Don again soon. That’s the extent of my political involvement. Your welcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

LOL

It's an asterisk next to his name for as long as the U.S. is a country.

The asterisk will denote the day that impeachment become no more significant than a parking ticket.

That's also not true. Impeached Trump can still face criminal prosecution over this when he leaves office.

There were no charges. They wasted about a hundred million so far. Even if it could happen, it’s not. Why don’t you write the president a letter, expressing your feelings. I’m sure you’ll receive a response. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure there were. He was charged with soliciting foreign interference to help with his re-election. That's a crime. And he was charged with obstructing Congress. That's also a crime.

Link us up to those statutes, Sport.

Don’t exist. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

Lie

Imbecile, "nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal.

Presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of the American criminal justice system...

We’ll asswipe, it’s funny how for an impeachment, you are alleging high CRIMES OR MISDEMEANORS. See that word crime moron? Bitch slapped yet again.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck...

"There certainly doesn't have to be a crime." ~ Alan Dershowitz

Regardless, Impeached Trump was impeached on two crimes -- soliciting foreign aid for his re-election campaign and obstructing Congress.

Were those both in the impeachment articles?

Why, no they weren't. What criminal statute was violated?

Of course they were.

Article I

President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage.​

That violates §30121

It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value,

Article II

Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees

Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees​

That violates 18 U.S. Code § 1505

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress

The Dims didn't list either statute, dumbass. Pursuing your lawful means of dealing with subpoenas is not "obstruction of Congress" moron. They have to be deemed lawful by the SC.